2 @c This is part of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.
3 @c Copyright (C) 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
4 @c See the file elisp.texi for copying conditions.
5 @setfilename ../info/macros
6 @node Macros, Loading, Functions, Top
10 @dfn{Macros} enable you to define new control constructs and other
11 language features. A macro is defined much like a function, but instead
12 of telling how to compute a value, it tells how to compute another Lisp
13 expression which will in turn compute the value. We call this
14 expression the @dfn{expansion} of the macro.
16 Macros can do this because they operate on the unevaluated expressions
17 for the arguments, not on the argument values as functions do. They can
18 therefore construct an expansion containing these argument expressions
21 If you are using a macro to do something an ordinary function could
22 do, just for the sake of speed, consider using an inline function
23 instead. @xref{Inline Functions}.
26 * Simple Macro:: A basic example.
27 * Expansion:: How, when and why macros are expanded.
28 * Compiling Macros:: How macros are expanded by the compiler.
29 * Defining Macros:: How to write a macro definition.
30 * Backquote:: Easier construction of list structure.
31 * Problems with Macros:: Don't evaluate the macro arguments too many times.
32 Don't hide the user's variables.
36 @section A Simple Example of a Macro
38 Suppose we would like to define a Lisp construct to increment a
39 variable value, much like the @code{++} operator in C. We would like to
40 write @code{(inc x)} and have the effect of @code{(setq x (1+ x))}.
41 Here's a macro definition that does the job:
47 (list 'setq var (list '1+ var)))
51 When this is called with @code{(inc x)}, the argument @code{var} has
52 the value @code{x}---@emph{not} the @emph{value} of @code{x}. The body
53 of the macro uses this to construct the expansion, which is @code{(setq
54 x (1+ x))}. Once the macro definition returns this expansion, Lisp
55 proceeds to evaluate it, thus incrementing @code{x}.
58 @section Expansion of a Macro Call
59 @cindex expansion of macros
62 A macro call looks just like a function call in that it is a list which
63 starts with the name of the macro. The rest of the elements of the list
64 are the arguments of the macro.
66 Evaluation of the macro call begins like evaluation of a function call
67 except for one crucial difference: the macro arguments are the actual
68 expressions appearing in the macro call. They are not evaluated before
69 they are given to the macro definition. By contrast, the arguments of a
70 function are results of evaluating the elements of the function call
73 Having obtained the arguments, Lisp invokes the macro definition just
74 as a function is invoked. The argument variables of the macro are bound
75 to the argument values from the macro call, or to a list of them in the
76 case of a @code{&rest} argument. And the macro body executes and
77 returns its value just as a function body does.
79 The second crucial difference between macros and functions is that the
80 value returned by the macro body is not the value of the macro call.
81 Instead, it is an alternate expression for computing that value, also
82 known as the @dfn{expansion} of the macro. The Lisp interpreter
83 proceeds to evaluate the expansion as soon as it comes back from the
86 Since the expansion is evaluated in the normal manner, it may contain
87 calls to other macros. It may even be a call to the same macro, though
90 You can see the expansion of a given macro call by calling
93 @defun macroexpand form &optional environment
94 @cindex macro expansion
95 This function expands @var{form}, if it is a macro call. If the result
96 is another macro call, it is expanded in turn, until something which is
97 not a macro call results. That is the value returned by
98 @code{macroexpand}. If @var{form} is not a macro call to begin with, it
101 Note that @code{macroexpand} does not look at the subexpressions of
102 @var{form} (although some macro definitions may do so). Even if they
103 are macro calls themselves, @code{macroexpand} does not expand them.
105 The function @code{macroexpand} does not expand calls to inline functions.
106 Normally there is no need for that, since a call to an inline function is
107 no harder to understand than a call to an ordinary function.
109 If @var{environment} is provided, it specifies an alist of macro
110 definitions that shadow the currently defined macros. Byte compilation
116 (list 'setq var (list '1+ var)))
121 (macroexpand '(inc r))
122 @result{} (setq r (1+ r))
126 (defmacro inc2 (var1 var2)
127 (list 'progn (list 'inc var1) (list 'inc var2)))
132 (macroexpand '(inc2 r s))
133 @result{} (progn (inc r) (inc s)) ; @r{@code{inc} not expanded here.}
138 @node Compiling Macros
139 @section Macros and Byte Compilation
140 @cindex byte-compiling macros
142 You might ask why we take the trouble to compute an expansion for a
143 macro and then evaluate the expansion. Why not have the macro body
144 produce the desired results directly? The reason has to do with
147 When a macro call appears in a Lisp program being compiled, the Lisp
148 compiler calls the macro definition just as the interpreter would, and
149 receives an expansion. But instead of evaluating this expansion, it
150 compiles the expansion as if it had appeared directly in the program.
151 As a result, the compiled code produces the value and side effects
152 intended for the macro, but executes at full compiled speed. This would
153 not work if the macro body computed the value and side effects
154 itself---they would be computed at compile time, which is not useful.
156 In order for compilation of macro calls to work, the macros must be
157 defined in Lisp when the calls to them are compiled. The compiler has a
158 special feature to help you do this: if a file being compiled contains a
159 @code{defmacro} form, the macro is defined temporarily for the rest of
160 the compilation of that file. To use this feature, you must define the
161 macro in the same file where it is used and before its first use.
163 Byte-compiling a file executes any @code{require} calls at top-level
164 in the file. This is in case the file needs the required packages for
165 proper compilation. One way to ensure that necessary macro definitions
166 are available during compilation is to require the file that defines
167 them. @xref{Features}.
169 @node Defining Macros
170 @section Defining Macros
172 A Lisp macro is a list whose @sc{car} is @code{macro}. Its @sc{cdr} should
173 be a function; expansion of the macro works by applying the function
174 (with @code{apply}) to the list of unevaluated argument-expressions
177 It is possible to use an anonymous Lisp macro just like an anonymous
178 function, but this is never done, because it does not make sense to pass
179 an anonymous macro to mapping functions such as @code{mapcar}. In
180 practice, all Lisp macros have names, and they are usually defined with
181 the special form @code{defmacro}.
183 @defspec defmacro name argument-list body-forms@dots{}
184 @code{defmacro} defines the symbol @var{name} as a macro that looks
188 (macro lambda @var{argument-list} . @var{body-forms})
191 This macro object is stored in the function cell of @var{name}. The
192 value returned by evaluating the @code{defmacro} form is @var{name}, but
193 usually we ignore this value.
195 The shape and meaning of @var{argument-list} is the same as in a
196 function, and the keywords @code{&rest} and @code{&optional} may be used
197 (@pxref{Argument List}). Macros may have a documentation string, but
198 any @code{interactive} declaration is ignored since macros cannot be
199 called interactively.
204 @cindex backquote (list substitution)
205 @cindex ` (list substitution)
208 Macros often need to construct large list structures from a mixture of
209 constants and nonconstant parts. To make this easier, use the macro
210 @code{`} (often called @dfn{backquote}).
212 Backquote allows you to quote a list, but selectively evaluate
213 elements of that list. In the simplest case, it is identical to the
214 special form @code{quote} (@pxref{Quoting}). For example, these
215 two forms yield identical results:
219 `(a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
220 @result{} (a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
223 '(a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
224 @result{} (a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
228 @findex , @r{(with Backquote)}
229 The special marker @code{,} inside of the argument to backquote
230 indicates a value that isn't constant. Backquote evaluates the
231 argument of @code{,} and puts the value in the list structure:
235 (list 'a 'list 'of (+ 2 3) 'elements)
236 @result{} (a list of 5 elements)
239 `(a list of ,(+ 2 3) elements)
240 @result{} (a list of 5 elements)
244 @findex ,@@ @r{(with Backquote)}
245 @cindex splicing (with backquote)
246 You can also @dfn{splice} an evaluated value into the resulting list,
247 using the special marker @code{,@@}. The elements of the spliced list
248 become elements at the same level as the other elements of the resulting
249 list. The equivalent code without using @code{`} is often unreadable.
250 Here are some examples:
254 (setq some-list '(2 3))
258 (cons 1 (append some-list '(4) some-list))
259 @result{} (1 2 3 4 2 3)
262 `(1 ,@@some-list 4 ,@@some-list)
263 @result{} (1 2 3 4 2 3)
267 (setq list '(hack foo bar))
268 @result{} (hack foo bar)
273 (cons 'words (append (cdr list) '(as elements)))))
274 @result{} (use the words foo bar as elements)
277 `(use the words ,@@(cdr list) as elements)
278 @result{} (use the words foo bar as elements)
283 Before Emacs version 19.29, @code{`} used a different syntax which
284 required an extra level of parentheses around the entire backquote
285 construct. Likewise, each @code{,} or @code{,@@} substition required an
286 extra level of parentheses surrounding both the @code{,} or @code{,@@}
287 and the following expression. The old syntax required whitespace
288 between the @code{`}, @code{,} or @code{,@@} and the following
291 This syntax is still accepted, but no longer recommended except for
292 compatibility with old Emacs versions.
295 @node Problems with Macros
296 @section Common Problems Using Macros
298 The basic facts of macro expansion have counterintuitive consequences.
299 This section describes some important consequences that can lead to
300 trouble, and rules to follow to avoid trouble.
303 * Argument Evaluation:: The expansion should evaluate each macro arg once.
304 * Surprising Local Vars:: Local variable bindings in the expansion
305 require special care.
306 * Eval During Expansion:: Don't evaluate them; put them in the expansion.
307 * Repeated Expansion:: Avoid depending on how many times expansion is done.
310 @node Argument Evaluation
311 @subsection Evaluating Macro Arguments Repeatedly
313 When defining a macro you must pay attention to the number of times
314 the arguments will be evaluated when the expansion is executed. The
315 following macro (used to facilitate iteration) illustrates the problem.
316 This macro allows us to write a simple ``for'' loop such as one might
322 (defmacro for (var from init to final do &rest body)
323 "Execute a simple \"for\" loop.
324 For example, (for i from 1 to 10 do (print i))."
325 (list 'let (list (list var init))
326 (cons 'while (cons (list '<= var final)
327 (append body (list (list 'inc var)))))))
332 (for i from 1 to 3 do
333 (setq square (* i i))
334 (princ (format "\n%d %d" i square)))
340 (setq square (* i i))
341 (princ (format "%d %d" i square))
354 (The arguments @code{from}, @code{to}, and @code{do} in this macro are
355 ``syntactic sugar''; they are entirely ignored. The idea is that you
356 will write noise words (such as @code{from}, @code{to}, and @code{do})
357 in those positions in the macro call.)
359 Here's an equivalent definition simplified through use of backquote:
363 (defmacro for (var from init to final do &rest body)
364 "Execute a simple \"for\" loop.
365 For example, (for i from 1 to 10 do (print i))."
366 (` (let (((, var) (, init)))
367 (while (<= (, var) (, final))
373 Both forms of this definition (with backquote and without) suffer from
374 the defect that @var{final} is evaluated on every iteration. If
375 @var{final} is a constant, this is not a problem. If it is a more
376 complex form, say @code{(long-complex-calculation x)}, this can slow
377 down the execution significantly. If @var{final} has side effects,
378 executing it more than once is probably incorrect.
380 @cindex macro argument evaluation
381 A well-designed macro definition takes steps to avoid this problem by
382 producing an expansion that evaluates the argument expressions exactly
383 once unless repeated evaluation is part of the intended purpose of the
384 macro. Here is a correct expansion for the @code{for} macro:
391 (setq square (* i i))
392 (princ (format "%d %d" i square))
397 Here is a macro definition that creates this expansion:
401 (defmacro for (var from init to final do &rest body)
402 "Execute a simple for loop: (for i from 1 to 10 do (print i))."
403 (` (let (((, var) (, init))
405 (while (<= (, var) max)
411 Unfortunately, this introduces another problem.
413 Proceed to the following node.
416 @node Surprising Local Vars
417 @subsection Local Variables in Macro Expansions
420 In the previous section, the definition of @code{for} was fixed as
421 follows to make the expansion evaluate the macro arguments the proper
426 (defmacro for (var from init to final do &rest body)
427 "Execute a simple for loop: (for i from 1 to 10 do (print i))."
430 (` (let (((, var) (, init))
432 (while (<= (, var) max)
439 The new definition of @code{for} has a new problem: it introduces a
440 local variable named @code{max} which the user does not expect. This
441 causes trouble in examples such as the following:
446 (for x from 0 to 10 do
447 (let ((this (frob x)))
454 The references to @code{max} inside the body of the @code{for}, which
455 are supposed to refer to the user's binding of @code{max}, really access
456 the binding made by @code{for}.
458 The way to correct this is to use an uninterned symbol instead of
459 @code{max} (@pxref{Creating Symbols}). The uninterned symbol can be
460 bound and referred to just like any other symbol, but since it is
461 created by @code{for}, we know that it cannot already appear in the
462 user's program. Since it is not interned, there is no way the user can
463 put it into the program later. It will never appear anywhere except
464 where put by @code{for}. Here is a definition of @code{for} that works
469 (defmacro for (var from init to final do &rest body)
470 "Execute a simple for loop: (for i from 1 to 10 do (print i))."
471 (let ((tempvar (make-symbol "max")))
472 (` (let (((, var) (, init))
473 ((, tempvar) (, final)))
474 (while (<= (, var) (, tempvar))
481 This creates an uninterned symbol named @code{max} and puts it in the
482 expansion instead of the usual interned symbol @code{max} that appears
483 in expressions ordinarily.
485 @node Eval During Expansion
486 @subsection Evaluating Macro Arguments in Expansion
488 Another problem can happen if you evaluate any of the macro argument
489 expressions during the computation of the expansion, such as by calling
490 @code{eval} (@pxref{Eval}). If the argument is supposed to refer to the
491 user's variables, you may have trouble if the user happens to use a
492 variable with the same name as one of the macro arguments. Inside the
493 macro body, the macro argument binding is the most local binding of this
494 variable, so any references inside the form being evaluated do refer
495 to it. Here is an example:
500 (list 'setq (eval a) t))
505 (foo x) @expansion{} (setq b t)
506 @result{} t ; @r{and @code{b} has been set.}
509 (foo a) @expansion{} (setq a t)
510 @result{} t ; @r{but this set @code{a}, not @code{c}.}
515 It makes a difference whether the user's variable is named @code{a} or
516 @code{x}, because @code{a} conflicts with the macro argument variable
519 Another reason not to call @code{eval} in a macro definition is that
520 it probably won't do what you intend in a compiled program. The
521 byte-compiler runs macro definitions while compiling the program, when
522 the program's own computations (which you might have wished to access
523 with @code{eval}) don't occur and its local variable bindings don't
526 The safe way to work with the run-time value of an expression is to
527 put the expression into the macro expansion, so that its value is
528 computed as part of executing the expansion.
530 @node Repeated Expansion
531 @subsection How Many Times is the Macro Expanded?
533 Occasionally problems result from the fact that a macro call is
534 expanded each time it is evaluated in an interpreted function, but is
535 expanded only once (during compilation) for a compiled function. If the
536 macro definition has side effects, they will work differently depending
537 on how many times the macro is expanded.
539 In particular, constructing objects is a kind of side effect. If the
540 macro is called once, then the objects are constructed only once. In
541 other words, the same structure of objects is used each time the macro
542 call is executed. In interpreted operation, the macro is reexpanded
543 each time, producing a fresh collection of objects each time. Usually
544 this does not matter---the objects have the same contents whether they
545 are shared or not. But if the surrounding program does side effects
546 on the objects, it makes a difference whether they are shared. Here is
551 (defmacro empty-object ()
552 (list 'quote (cons nil nil)))
556 (defun initialize (condition)
557 (let ((object (empty-object)))
559 (setcar object condition))
565 If @code{initialize} is interpreted, a new list @code{(nil)} is
566 constructed each time @code{initialize} is called. Thus, no side effect
567 survives between calls. If @code{initialize} is compiled, then the
568 macro @code{empty-object} is expanded during compilation, producing a
569 single ``constant'' @code{(nil)} that is reused and altered each time
570 @code{initialize} is called.
572 One way to avoid pathological cases like this is to think of
573 @code{empty-object} as a funny kind of constant, not as a memory
574 allocation construct. You wouldn't use @code{setcar} on a constant such
575 as @code{'(nil)}, so naturally you won't use it on @code{(empty-object)}